Logic 101: prostitution & religion

"Personally, I have no problem with that (prostitution) at all. Zero. Every normal human being has a sex drive, just as everyone needs food, water and sleep. If it's OK for a woman, young or old, to offer to do my nails, give me a massage, clean my house, or cook for me, why the fuck shouldn't she be able to offer her own personal sexual services for $$$?

Look at this ridiculous scenario: Dick and Jane meet at work. Dick asks Jane out to dinner and a movie. They do it. Then, they go back to one of their homes/apts and fuck. Perfectly normal. BUT-------same scenario, but at dinner Jane tells Dick that she has a feeling that he would like to have sex with her. Dick says that she's correct. Jane asks Dick if he would like to skip the movie, go back to her place and screw, but she would ask him to give her $100. Dick happily agrees. They fuck; Dick couldn't be more satisfied with the sex that he had with Jane; Jane is really happy to have picked up an extra $100, in addition to having an enjoyable evening. OK? No, not only have they sinned---according to many---but they're also fucking criminals,--misdemeanants. What is the fucking difference??? If you do it for free, it's OK, but, if you charge someone who's more than willing to pay your quoted price, it's a crime???? Whatever.

Or, turning to religion, in the Old Testament, if a guy fucks a guy, it's horrendously awful because God says so (I don't remember making him the arbiter of my own, personal behavior,--but, what do I know). However, if Louie in that village over there has a statue of Mickey Mouse on his mantle, not only is it our OBLIGATION to kill Louie, but also his whole family, the whole fucking village, and every fucking animal in sight. All, obviously, egregious evildoers.

And, if anybody has the gall and audacity to work on the Sabbath, stone all those fuckers to death too. What, you ask, about all the medical personnel working at ER's and hospitals? Firefighters? Cops? All those people at Walmart? Hey, asshole, that's what the Bible, i.e., the word of God, TELLS us to do. Now get your lazy ass out there and do what you're supposed to do. OR, you'll be in deep shit. And, you don't even want to THINK about what's gonna happen after you croak.

Or, I guess that you could be a Cafeteria Christian and,--------oh well, what the Hell.

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Back in my church days a man admitted that he was "caught in sex" with Suzy, but he said "at least it was a natural sin. It wasn't like tobacco or anything". I still laugh over that one, but wonder how they were "caught." Did someone walk in on them? Maybe this was shared in some session of "confess your sins one to another" support meeting. (Some support.) "Hey, Charlie. At least my sin wasn't like yours. I didn't fuck a cow or anything."

I'd additionally view this from an evolutionary viewpoint. Just like in figuring out politics, you need to follow the money, in biology you need to follow the genetics.

In the vast majority of mammals (unlike humans), females are only sexually active when they are specifically fertile. Once a female mammal becomes pregnant she does not want the male around and will actively avoid him (yes ladies your mammalian cousins are real love'em and leave'em types).

In humans this is quite different and we need to examine why through the evolutionary lens. There are a couple of things very different about human reproduction: 1) their young are VERY resource intensive, for an extended time. Unlike most mammal young which require intense care only for a relatively short period of time, and 2) humans are capable of very complex cooperation.

Now, imagine a small mutation, which turns off the sexuality switch, and the female remains sexually active. This changes a lot. The male sticks around and while she is occupied with the young he is motivated to share resources. This benefits her, as well as her (and his) offspring. There you go: reproductive advantage.

From this perspective, non (directly) reproduction sex is very much about resources. Marriage, prostitution, 'sugar daddies', gold diggers... it's a a variation on the same biological theme. Is it a coincidence that that glamorous or desirable females seem to acquire richer, more powerful mates? No, it's natural selection in action.

Males in general need to expend energy and resources to mate whether it's a matter of besting other males for access to females or expending effort and resources on wooing females themselves, mating carries a cost. So it falls, rather simply into natural male behavior to be willing to give something up for sex. (While there can be male prostitutes as well as female, customers of prostitutes are almost exclusively male, they are the ones biologically tuned to be willing to give resources in exchange for mating).

Religion and culture have tried to alter basic human behavior with either little effect or disastrous side effects.